Polls Shows Hillary Clinton With Solid Lead

Poll Shows Clinton With Solid Lead Among Democrats

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 23, 2007; Page A07

By a wide margin, Democrats view Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) as the party's candidate best positioned to win the general election, and she holds a double-digit lead over Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the race for the nomination, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll.

Clinton enjoys a substantial edge over Obama among the 4 in 10 Democrats who said that in assessing presidential candidates, strength and experience are more important than new ideas or a new direction. Even among the 51 percent who prefer a change-oriented candidate, the core message of Obama's campaign, Clinton runs even with him.

It may be equally important that Clinton's initial support for the Iraq war is not proving a significant impediment to her bid. Clinton has drawn criticism this year for refusing to apologize for her 2002 vote authorizing the use of force, but the poll shows her leading among Democrats who support a deadline for withdrawing US. forces as well as those who oppose a deadline. She has a 51 percent to 29 percent lead over Obama among those in favor of a complete, immediate withdrawal.

Obama has sought to make his initial opposition to the war an asset in his campaign, but Clinton has become increasingly vocal in criticizing President Bush's management of the war and now supports a timetable for the start of troop withdrawals.

The poll comes as Democrats assemble in Charleston, S.C., tonight for their fourth debate of the year. The two-hour debate, sponsored by CNN and YouTube, will feature questions posted on YouTube, a video-sharing site, by people from around the country in what is likely to be one of the most innovative debate formats to date.

With almost six months of hard campaigning before the first primaries and caucuses, the Democratic race is far from settled.

To close the gap with Clinton, Obama will need to convince more voters that he is the best candidate to offer the country a new direction after the partisan wars of the past decades. He must also neutralize Clinton's advantage among those who emphasize strength and experience, or draw significant numbers of new voters to the primaries. The nomination battle could also be decided on the question of who Democrats believe has the best chance of recapturing the White House after eight years of Republican rule.

Clinton is a polarizing figure, which has raised questions about whether she could win a general election. But Democrats appear to dismiss that argument. Asked which Democratic candidate has the best chance of winning the general election in November 2008, 54 percent said Clinton, more than twice the percentage saying Obama (22 percent). Nine percent think former senator John Edwards (N.C.) would be most likely to win. Among Democratic-leaning independents, 44 percent said Clinton, 25 percent Obama and 11 percent Edwards.

Republicans and independents are less convinced that Clinton has the best shot. Among independents, 35 percent cited Clinton as the Democrat with the best chance of beating the GOP nominee and 29 percent said Obama. Among Republicans, 37 percent said Clinton and 33 percent Obama.

At this early stage, Clinton remains the candidate to beat in the Democratic field.

Overall, 45 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents support Clinton to be the party's nominee, with Obama second at 30 percent. Edwards, whose hopes for winning depend heavily on a victory in the Iowa caucuses in January, is at 12 percent. Clinton's margin over Obama has been generally steady since February, just after the two candidates launched their presidential bids.

FOR HILLARY CLINTON, the presidency is not in the bag. Even winning the Democratic presidential nomination is considerably less than a sure thing. But of the 18 Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, Clinton is the most likely to be the next president. And she did nothing last night in the bizarre presidential debate in Charleston, South Carolina, to alter that.

Clinton managed to maintain at least the outward appearance of seriousness in a debate that included a taped question from someone dressed as a snowman, another from a sanctimonious Planned Parenthood official who asked if the candidates had talked to their kids about sex, and an especially silly one about whether the candidates would be willing to be paid the minimum wage as president. Most of them lied and said yes.

This was the first of six debates sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee. Based on this one, there's a long and tedious season of yakking ahead in the presidential race. With You Tube providing the questions and the candidates offering special one-minute commercials, the idea was to make last night's debate livelier and more fun. Often, though, it was merely unserious, excessively cute, and frivolous.

There was a key moment, however, and once again it pitted Clinton, the New York senator, against Barack Obama, her counterpart from Illinois. The question was whether they'D promise to meet in the first year of their presidency with the leaders of such enemy nations as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, and Syria.

"I would," Obama said, foolishly showing 
his inexperience, and perhaps his naivete as well, in foreign affairs. After all, he said, President Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and still talked to Soviet leaders. "I think it's a disgrace we haven't talked" to leaders of the five anti-American countries, Obama said.

Clinton benefited from getting to answer after Obama, and she made the most of it. She said, firmly and coolly, that she wouldn't promise to meet with them. Clinton said the new president had to be careful not to be exploited by hostile leaders for propaganda purposes and not to do anything "that would make the situation worse." Before any meeting, she'D have to know "what the way forward would be."

The verdict on whose answer was better, Obama's or Clinton's, came from John Edwards, the next candidate to speak. He echoed Clinton.

As anti-Iraq war as Clinton has become, she also refused to be drawn into competition with the other candidates over who favored the earliest and most complete withdrawal of American troops. She said it must be done "safely and orderly and carefully," and not merely as quickly as possible.

Clinton said she was "agnostic" on expanding the use of nuclear power and didn't get a chance to spell out her plans on health care. Bill Richardson, eager to out-pander his foes, said "every American deserves the right to the best quality health care." He didn't say how this would be achieved.

The other candidates? Obama, exciting on the stump, was dull in the debate. Mike Gravel seemed quite taken with himself, for no good reason. Dennis Kucinich also exuded enormous self-regard. Edwards oozed insincerity, especially when he said anyone who voted against Clinton because she's a woman or Obama because he's African-American shouldn't vote for him. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd gave reasonable answers, the kind you'D expect from liberal Democratic senators.

For Clinton, the important thing in debates is that she doesn't say anything that gets her in trouble or seriously jeopardizes her chances against the Republican nominee. And she succeeded. She may actually have helped her campaign a bit.

Still, there's nothing inevitable about Clinton's winning the Democratic nomination. She's just closer to gaining the presidential nomination than any candidate in either party. In other words, she's got a better shot at being the Democratic nominee than Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson have of becoming the Republican presidential choice.

And then there's the general election race, which favors the Democrat candidate, assuming it's either Clinton or Obama. Yes, Clinton has incredibly high negatives. One national poll found recently that 52 percent of Americans said they'D never vote for her for president. But don't be fooled. The political environment is likely to trump that sentiment.

Unless the national mood changes by November 2008, Democrats will have a large advantage in attracting independent voters. They will have a more excited and involved base. They will have more money. And after the immigration fiasco, they will have the support of a larger chunk of the Hispanic vote than in 2004.

Again, all this doesn't mean Clinton is odds-on to succeed George W. Bush in the White House. It does mean, though, that she has a better chance than anyone else.

-----Culled from Washington Post and THE WEEKLY STANDARD

Did u actually read firstborn's post? U get strength oh! 

Both of them are toooooooooooooo soft on illegal immigraton, neither have my vote but if Hillary has a big lead I am not surprised.

toooooooooooooo soft on illegal immigraton. What is your solution to illegal immigration? Round up 12 milliom illegals and deport them. That will go into the history books. Immigration whether legal or illegal is part of the American life. Think of something else why you will not vote for either of these candidates.

A true "Nigerian" diplomat in American domestic and foreign policies!!!! Keep up your good work!!! Please do not forget to vote in '08!!!!!   The republicans are counting on you!!!!!!!

@MILITIA

thank you jare. Please do not feel outnumbered due to my absence.

Vote enmass for the great and powerful ELEPHANT, shun the stupid donkey.

Don't worry. Our umbrella here is equivalent to the elephant over there.

But you see, they say our umbrella is corrupt, thank God though that their elephant is still with much integrity.

Red rocks. You guys should massively mobilise for privates Cheney to contest. He has done a lot for America behind the scenes.

It's Hillary all the way oohhhhh. Not because she is a woman, but because she has the backing of her husband and former president, Bill Clinton. I don't support Oboma. A lot of people that supports do so simply because he is black, including whites. Me thinks that is ventilating political immaturity. Hillary is politically more mature than Obama. Obama will get very confused in some issues that Hillary will treat with dispatch.secondly, time is up for republicans. Bush has washed enough of their dirty linen in public. We need fresh air and hillary will bring that.

Hillary is too polarising and old school, she was part of the washington establishment that lead america into Iraq with the conventional washington way of doing things. barack obama is the man because he is still fresh and untainted besides that he is'nt over zealously partisan.

She might have said so. I supported the invasion of Iraq, now i fully support withdrawal of troops.Why? Because the strategy is failling. What do u do if that is so? U retreat. Acknowledge ur mistake and look for alternative. Bush is saying that the plan is working even when other republicans, including Mcain has said that the strategy is flawed. That it was "grossly" mismanaged. Though he ddnt support wothdrawal because he is towing party lines.
   Bush is behaving as if he is looking for another sadam Hussein in Iraq. 

Don't you just love it when Nigerians ( WHO HAVE SO FAR NOT BEEN ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM IN THEIR OWN HOUSES) go around trying to COMPLAIN about what is happening in someone elses BACKYARD 



Have you tried that Strategy in your own PAPA LAND FIRST?? Or are you here Mouthing off cause you can in America since you no fit pull the same muscles in your own PAPA LAND??? I just love the way we speak like people who have so much power and command when we are stiring someone elses pot but back in our own house, we are being roasted over seriously hot fire and we are not even doing anything about it.  NIGERIANS !!! I HAIL UNA !!!! 

@ Kobojunkie ,
   What are u talking about?? Be specific!@#$%^&*()_+

U can just chill, since u've gat nothing to offer in this matter.

Anyway my people, i just read that the gr8test threat to Hillary now is that anything can happen between now and them convention. Even though she looks like she is cruising home, she really has to watch her body language and her speech. She should be decent and wise enough to know when to speak her mind and when to mind her speech. I am 100% behind her.